us flag

What Can You Do?

This headline is from an article written by an old friend of mine, now deceased.

What can you do? More than you might think.

You can alert me of speaking opportunities or help arrange them within your own organization.

You can familiarize yourself with the national security state, what Eisenhower also called the "garrison state", what former CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson calls the "imperial state" and what many journalists now call the "warfare state" and you can explain it to anyone who will listen.

You can ask politicians and media about their role in establishing this state and where it is taking the economy of our country. You can ask my opponents, Ben Quayle and Jon Hulburd, how they are going to fix things. You can ask Ben Quayle why he does not support bringing the co-conspirators of 9/11 to trial in the U.S. criminal justice system. He is an attorney -- he should have a ready answer.

You can protect yourself and your loved ones from the national security state by keeping them out of harm's way, either in the government's military or the privatized military.

You can minimize your support for this misadventure by carefully and honestly preparing your taxes to minimize monies paid to the Federal government.

You can resolve to never again vote for a Democrat or a Republican.

You can stop subscriptions and purchases of mainstream media. You can stop watching or listening to mainstream media "news". You can search out alternative, truthful news sources.

You can acquire skills which are marketable even in a profound recession caused by withdrawal of foreign debt support.

Hard Core tennis
We invest a lot of energy and interest into sports, which can be good. What if we spent some of that energy learning what our elected officials are really doing? High public officials operate under a veil of secrecy and behind a compliant media screen and get away with literally murder. This is not good for our democracy nor for you or I.

You can apply an analytical template of analysis to the "news" and throw out most of it as diversionary or trivial. This template is contained in the following four paragraphs:

All institutions, including governments, seek to increase their size/strength. Once a government has grown as large as it can for legitimate reasons -- roads, judicial system, police, etc. -- it seeks non-legitimate reasons for growth, either the warfare (national security) state or the socialist state. The socialist state takes social powers from the individual -- education, consumer and career choices-- and makes these decisions itself. The warfare state precipitates wars with other states, or creates bogus enemies out of harmless states, or trains, arms and then provokes former client states to war or, finally, creates non-state amorphous enemies (war on drugs, terror, crime, etc.), all of which create demand for the products of the military-industrial-governmental complex.

The warfare state does not intend to "win" wars in the common understanding, only to create demand for the products of the military-industrial-governmental complex (which includes the so-called "intelligence" agencies). Citizens are told that we are trying to "win" the war ", "spread democracy" or "stop tyranny", etc., but these goals are never achieved. The real goal is to increase demand for the products of the military-industrial-governmental complex. The preferred result for the warfare state is a stalemate which creates substantial new enemies, i.e., more demand for the products of the m-i-g complex. Big media goes along because war and fear of war are products which the media sells.

Both government and big media create fear in the citizenry, which engenders citizen support for a larger m-i-g complex (to protect the fearful citizens) and additional demand for the pallative news of Big Media. The government has a near-unreviewable hand because it can base its decisions on "classified" information which citizens cannot hope to know.

The core of the unnecessary-war based national security state is secrecy -- that it can withhold from the democracy the reasons for its actions. This secrecy is what makes the intelligence agencies so destructive to a democracy. Covert action (secret wars, not just secret information) is one step worse. Covert operations prevent the democracy from even knowing what wars the government is prosecuting, much less the factual basis for those wars. Covert action is the triumph of the national security state over democracy.

History is replete with examples: The claimed reasons (WMD) for Gulf War II were untrue. In the 1980s, Iraq was a client state which we armed and furnished intelligence to conduct a proxy war against Iran. Prior to Gulf War I, Iraq agreed to pull out of Kuwait, but we attacked (and slaughtered) them anyway on the road home (reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt's Spanish-American "splendid little war'). We then bombed and embargoed and ballyhooed the Iraqi monsters for the next 12 years. The claimed reason (WMD) for commencing Gulf II was as hollow as Gulf I. Gulf War II resulted in not just a stalemate, but a defeat of sorts and has created a huge number of new, determined (and somewhat justified) enemies. This is what our treasonous leaders had hoped for.

Our best war, WWII, was similarly bogus. Pearl Harbor was orchestrated by FDR and his admirals. The admiral and general at Pearl were among the few top brass who did not know the details (including time, date and weaponry) of the impending attack. The Japanese were entrapped into war by a U.S. Navy/FDR written eight-point plan, finessed over fourteen months, which culminated in a world-wide embargo of all petroleum to Japan and a "stand-down" order to the entire U.S. Navy. Roosevelt saw this as a means to enter the German/English war (based on the German-Japanese mutual assistance agreement) and "save" England but, over a year prior to Pearl, Hitler had abandoned his planned invasion of England and had lost the (air) Battle of Britain and, by December 1941, was stuck in the snow in Russia. Hitler was already on a downhill slide, and the Soviets would sacrifice 27.5 million lives to destroy the German war machine. Notwithstanding, Roosevelt and his admirals continued their Pearl Harbor entrapment. Must have been great fun!

Another specious reason for our entry into WWII was to save the Jews. In fact, we routinely refused entry to Jewish refugees at our ports and sent their boats back to the death camps. We even refused passports to the family of Anne Frank, specifically including Anne. But we will never hear this from mainstream media for reasons listed on the Media page of this site. We will only hear fairy tales. We surely did not enter the war to save the Soviets because, like Churchill, we watched with glee as the Germans and Soviets bled each other white.

One of the great tragedies of WWII is that the Pearl Harbor "intelligence failure" was used as the excuse for the 1947 creation of the NSA and CIA, both deadly enemies of U.S. democracy. Instead of creating the CIA, we should have tried Roosevelt and his admirals for treason and hung them. But we were stupid. And we still are.

The goal of our foreign policy is the acquisition of other countries' wealth through their destabilization. We seek to weaken the governments of countries whose resources we wish to acquire. If the foreign government has little popular support, then we offer our support in return for discounted access to their resources. If the government has strong popular support, then we destabilize it -- overthrow, finance enemies, publish lies, embargo it, attack it, whatever -- so it must come to us for support and, in return, give us discounted access to its resources. The form of government -- monarchy, democracy, military junta, dictatorship -- does not matter. We treat them all the same: Nassar's Egypt, Iran 1953, Saddam's Iraq, modern Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, post-Soviet Afghanistan, modern Uzbekistan, Syria, etc. We consistently support Israel because it destabilizes the entire region. Google "destabilization policy" and you will get about one million hits, mostly academic articles. But mainstream media will tell you zero.